I am discontinuing this blog because of personal and medical reasons.
Thank you for your readership and support over the last year. It has been really fun looking at current planes and spacecraft, and speculating about possible future developments.
EC Holm
Ad Astra.
Ammendment 6/20/2014
I am reconsidering the 'discontinue' of this blog. I have decided to
keep writing, but periodically and not weekly. I still love aerospace
and have comments about it. Yet it is a slow going industry, and I
found it hard to find material that is interesting.
Thank you kindly for your reading. I see that people still read this blog, and it's much appreciated.
EC Holm
Monday, October 7, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Interview With A Commercial Astronaut
The following is a work of fiction. The characters are fictional. Any resemblance of characters to real people is a mere coincidence and unintentional.
"Test, test. Is this thing on?" said Tom checking his microphone. He tried to look past the blinding lights to see his audio guy. All he could see was the camera men.
"It's working, Tom," came a voice in his earphone. He adjusted his suit and got ready for the mission at hand. Then he looked straight into the nearest camera.
"2030 is the year of more commercial space progress. The Dragonfly project is going to take off tomorrow around 6 am in the morning. The project will test an in-line air boost to orbit concept in the hopes of competing with the reusable rocket family from SpaceX. This is Tom Townsend live from Cape Canaveral. Here with me is the pilot of the mission, Dan Darger. Dan, what got you interested in space?" Tom looked starlight at his guest in a silver pressure suit that had several logos of sponsors on it.
"Well, Tom. That's a good question," Dan said trying to calm himself to say the right thing. "I think it started when I was pretty young. You see, my Dad got me and himself tickets to ride a Virgin Galactic spaceplane. I guess it was love at first launch." Dan felt really good about that answer.
"Was that the SpaceShipTwo class or later classes? I think were up to SpaceShipFive if I'm not mistaken."
"Uhh. Yeah. It was a small ship that seated six passengers and took us up to about 100 clicks." Dan paused a moment with his finger ponting to Tom with a up an down motion. "The thing that struck me was the view of the Earth. I always thought the rocket ride up would be the coolest, but the Earth....Man! That was something." Dan's mind went back to that moment, that emotion.
"I heard it's a magnificent site."
"You haven't been up? Oh man! You gotta go, you just gotta. You don't know what your missing until you go." Dan smiled at Tom feeling a little superior.
"Well, I guess I just might. But let's talk about your mission tomorrow. What is the significance of it?" Tom attempted to gain control back after feeling a little put down.
"Well, Tom. It's a winged craft with scram jets and a orbiter attached to its nose. I will be riding in the orbiter. The two crafts will take off from the space runway here at the Cape with the first stage rocket. Then that will be jettisoned. It will scream up into the atmosphere gaining acceleration as it goes using the scram jets. At about 100,000 ft, the orbiter will detach with a small rocket and go into space. Once in initial orbit, that small rocket is jettisoned, and the orbit is stabilized by the orbiter's main engines." Dan could feel himself relaxing and getting the hang of this interview.
"OK. What will happen to the mothership?"
"Oh, right! It will fly back down to the runway."
"I know the project is about the mothership, but tell us a little about the orbiter." Tom put on the best interested tone he could muster.
"Well, the orbiter has been to space before. In fact, it's been in orbit more than a hundred times and was retired about 5 years ago. It was built by SNC and it was the original Dreamchaser. It's a lifting body style craft that flies well in space and the atmosphere. It was refurbished and retrofitted for this mission." Dan went through the data in his mind to see if that was enough for the answer.
"So, why are you not piloting the mothership rather than the orbiter?" Tom smiled smugly at the camera then at Dan.
"Well...uh....isn't it obvious?" Dan looked quizzically.
"Not everyone is a rocket scientist, Dan. The folks out there want to hear your expert viewpoint. So tell us why your in the orbiter."
"Oh...right! Well the project is about getting to space cheaply. So the mothership was designed to fly without a pilot on board. The actual pilots will be on the ground. It is also smart so it can fly independently if need be. I'm in the orbiter to do orbits. Yeah, for the system to be proven, I have to get the orbiter to orbit and then land back safely on the runway."
"Good. That sums the mission up pretty good." Tom felt back in control and Dan was all smiles patting himself on the back. "So, Dan, what are you wearing?"
"This is my pressurized flight suit. It keeps me alive in case of a loss of pressurization." Dan looked down at his silver suit. "As you can see it has logos of my sponsors."
"Yes, it's very colorful. And loss of pressurization means when the orbiter looses air Dan won't die because of the suit." Tom felt a little ticked that Dan didn't elaborate on that detail.
"Yeah, that's it! On top of this I will be wearing a parachute."
"A parachute?"
"Uh....yeah! In case something bad happens." Dan felt that was enough said.
"Something bad? Like you blow up?"
"Ah...well....yes, but not exactly. If the orbiter blows up I blow up with it and the chute is no good. But if the mothership has a bad failure I can just detach the orbiter and fly it down to safety. Now if the mothership is badly damaged and the orbiter is damaged as well but in one piece but can't get back to land, then I have the chute to bail out and fly another day." Dan felt that that was a blunder of an explanation and it was uncomfortable to say.
"Oh I see. You just want to live no matter what." Tom stated the obvious but he felt it needed to be said.
"Ah, yeah! Don't you?" Quizzical look again showed up on Dan's face.
"Sure I do. And we all do." Tom laughed his way through embarrassment.
"Well, good luck on your flight tomorrow. I hope the Dragonfly project is a success," said Tom concluding the interview.
"Thanks Tom," said Dan with a big smile.
Tom gave a cut sign to the camera men. The cameras lenses dropped like horses stopping to graze.
"Feel nervous about tomorrow?" asked Tom.
Dan slumped back in his seat with a sigh. "Not as much as I do about this interview."
Tom looked at him quizzically.
"Test, test. Is this thing on?" said Tom checking his microphone. He tried to look past the blinding lights to see his audio guy. All he could see was the camera men.
"It's working, Tom," came a voice in his earphone. He adjusted his suit and got ready for the mission at hand. Then he looked straight into the nearest camera.
"2030 is the year of more commercial space progress. The Dragonfly project is going to take off tomorrow around 6 am in the morning. The project will test an in-line air boost to orbit concept in the hopes of competing with the reusable rocket family from SpaceX. This is Tom Townsend live from Cape Canaveral. Here with me is the pilot of the mission, Dan Darger. Dan, what got you interested in space?" Tom looked starlight at his guest in a silver pressure suit that had several logos of sponsors on it.
"Well, Tom. That's a good question," Dan said trying to calm himself to say the right thing. "I think it started when I was pretty young. You see, my Dad got me and himself tickets to ride a Virgin Galactic spaceplane. I guess it was love at first launch." Dan felt really good about that answer.
"Was that the SpaceShipTwo class or later classes? I think were up to SpaceShipFive if I'm not mistaken."
"Uhh. Yeah. It was a small ship that seated six passengers and took us up to about 100 clicks." Dan paused a moment with his finger ponting to Tom with a up an down motion. "The thing that struck me was the view of the Earth. I always thought the rocket ride up would be the coolest, but the Earth....Man! That was something." Dan's mind went back to that moment, that emotion.
"I heard it's a magnificent site."
"You haven't been up? Oh man! You gotta go, you just gotta. You don't know what your missing until you go." Dan smiled at Tom feeling a little superior.
"Well, I guess I just might. But let's talk about your mission tomorrow. What is the significance of it?" Tom attempted to gain control back after feeling a little put down.
"Well, Tom. It's a winged craft with scram jets and a orbiter attached to its nose. I will be riding in the orbiter. The two crafts will take off from the space runway here at the Cape with the first stage rocket. Then that will be jettisoned. It will scream up into the atmosphere gaining acceleration as it goes using the scram jets. At about 100,000 ft, the orbiter will detach with a small rocket and go into space. Once in initial orbit, that small rocket is jettisoned, and the orbit is stabilized by the orbiter's main engines." Dan could feel himself relaxing and getting the hang of this interview.
"OK. What will happen to the mothership?"
"Oh, right! It will fly back down to the runway."
"I know the project is about the mothership, but tell us a little about the orbiter." Tom put on the best interested tone he could muster.
"Well, the orbiter has been to space before. In fact, it's been in orbit more than a hundred times and was retired about 5 years ago. It was built by SNC and it was the original Dreamchaser. It's a lifting body style craft that flies well in space and the atmosphere. It was refurbished and retrofitted for this mission." Dan went through the data in his mind to see if that was enough for the answer.
"So, why are you not piloting the mothership rather than the orbiter?" Tom smiled smugly at the camera then at Dan.
"Well...uh....isn't it obvious?" Dan looked quizzically.
"Not everyone is a rocket scientist, Dan. The folks out there want to hear your expert viewpoint. So tell us why your in the orbiter."
"Oh...right! Well the project is about getting to space cheaply. So the mothership was designed to fly without a pilot on board. The actual pilots will be on the ground. It is also smart so it can fly independently if need be. I'm in the orbiter to do orbits. Yeah, for the system to be proven, I have to get the orbiter to orbit and then land back safely on the runway."
"Good. That sums the mission up pretty good." Tom felt back in control and Dan was all smiles patting himself on the back. "So, Dan, what are you wearing?"
"This is my pressurized flight suit. It keeps me alive in case of a loss of pressurization." Dan looked down at his silver suit. "As you can see it has logos of my sponsors."
"Yes, it's very colorful. And loss of pressurization means when the orbiter looses air Dan won't die because of the suit." Tom felt a little ticked that Dan didn't elaborate on that detail.
"Yeah, that's it! On top of this I will be wearing a parachute."
"A parachute?"
"Uh....yeah! In case something bad happens." Dan felt that was enough said.
"Something bad? Like you blow up?"
"Ah...well....yes, but not exactly. If the orbiter blows up I blow up with it and the chute is no good. But if the mothership has a bad failure I can just detach the orbiter and fly it down to safety. Now if the mothership is badly damaged and the orbiter is damaged as well but in one piece but can't get back to land, then I have the chute to bail out and fly another day." Dan felt that that was a blunder of an explanation and it was uncomfortable to say.
"Oh I see. You just want to live no matter what." Tom stated the obvious but he felt it needed to be said.
"Ah, yeah! Don't you?" Quizzical look again showed up on Dan's face.
"Sure I do. And we all do." Tom laughed his way through embarrassment.
"Well, good luck on your flight tomorrow. I hope the Dragonfly project is a success," said Tom concluding the interview.
"Thanks Tom," said Dan with a big smile.
Tom gave a cut sign to the camera men. The cameras lenses dropped like horses stopping to graze.
"Feel nervous about tomorrow?" asked Tom.
Dan slumped back in his seat with a sigh. "Not as much as I do about this interview."
Tom looked at him quizzically.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Mass Logistics To Space Idea
ISS partners keep a flow of small pressurized cargo craft coming to the station for just 6 crew and experiments. Progress, ATV, HTV, Dragon, and soon Cynus make up such a fleet. The ATV is the biggest carrying a max of 16,900 lbs or 7,667 kg. On land, we stack huge metal boxes carrying all kinds of cargo on ships, trains, and trucks. These are shipped around the land supplying communities with effectively whatever they need. Commonly these are 40ft long cargo containers and can carry a max of 68,008 lbs or 30,848 kg.
Imagine if commercial space takes off, and many space stations orbit around Earth, the moon, and deep space are made and manned. Having around 24 people in each station who need food, clothes, equipment sent to them and waste taken from them. How would you supply that amount of cargo?
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can lift to orbit almost the gross weight/mass of two 40 ft cargo boxes. So, I figure it could carry the cargo of one of these cargo boxes in a purpose made reusable stretch cargo capsule. It would be a vehicle of mass logistics transportation. What would such a craft look like and what would its operation be like?
Why stretch anything? The airline industry have stretched the bodies of its planes for many years to expand their payload capacity. I remember first learning about stretched aircraft with the DC-9. It would seem reasonable to assume that commercial space companies sought out a solution for an increased capacity without reinventing the wheel all the way. SpaceX's Dragon is touted as a reusable capsule. They also want to make it to be capable of propulsive landings on the ground from orbit. Thinking about those capabilities, you could stretch the capsule lengthwise (see pic above) to increase cargo capacity per trip.
A stretched capsule could launch from a heavy lifting rocket like the Falcon Heavy housed in a fairing. Upon arrival, it could dock or be captured and berthed to a station. The hatch on one end of the capsule would minimize space issues while attached to a station. I don't imagine that it would be used for crew but only for pressurized cargo. The station's Astronauts (Cosmonauts, or Taikonauts - if you like) would unload it and load it back up with whatever needs to be taken back down to Earth. That could include experiments and even waste. I've been considering the environmental impact of expending waste by burning it in the atmosphere. Dealing with the waste on the ground might be more beneficial. The capsule would detach from the station and de-orbit on its own merit. The long heat sheild and the integrity of the cross sectional shape of the capsule would allow for a similar atmospheric re-entry as the Dragon. Stretching the capsule longways also allows room for extra parachutes. Dragon stores its parachutes on the side of the craft in a compartment. The stretched capsule could have two or more compartments for parachutes. Then comes the propulsive landing which would have a number of thrusters along the sides of the craft. Several landing legs would also support this operation.
The stretch capsule could be an intriguing idea for future engineers and space operations. I think the alternative is to build newer and bigger capsules mostly from scratch. It's not just the capsule that has to be designed but the manufacturing process as well. I think a stretched solution would use the existing manufacturing process with some added parts. In the end, this is just one idea out of many.
 |
| Stretch Capsule concept made from Apollo CM pic |
 |
| Falcon Heavy (right) with Falcon family |
The stretch capsule could be an intriguing idea for future engineers and space operations. I think the alternative is to build newer and bigger capsules mostly from scratch. It's not just the capsule that has to be designed but the manufacturing process as well. I think a stretched solution would use the existing manufacturing process with some added parts. In the end, this is just one idea out of many.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Solar Impulse At St Louis
On one of the nicest evenings in recent memory in St Louis County, Solar Impulse silently eased its way to Lambert Airport from Texas. It was a cool night without a cloud in the sky. It was perfect.I had just purchased a Fujifilm FinePix camera on discount from Amazon.com. I had some initial practice with it at night from my home. I took a couple of pictures of stars, clouds, birds, and sunrise. The landscape was flooded with trees which served as a type of boarder anytime you look at the sky.
It was Monday evening, and I knew the plane was coming. The local paper website, St Louis Post Dispatch, had an article saying it was on its way. Unfortunately it would arrive right after tornadic weather hit the airport. Even with these events in mind, I felt excited. Pulling up the Solar Impulse website, I could track Bertrand Piccard's progression through the midwestern countryside. He yet seemed far away.A skilled pilot, Betrand was a member of a family of explorers. So much so that Jean Luc Picard character in Star Trek was modeled after the twins Jean and Auguste Piccard. Bertrand was Auguste's grandson.
The chat on the site was active and the mood was joyous. Much was about the ground crew was doing as seen in the live video stream. I logged in to join the conversation, though my mind was on the things that were about to occur.
I noticed that the map showed Bertrand would fly in a holding pattern right near my home. My mind raced. He was still some miles out. At around Washington he crossed the Missouri River, then followed it. I realized he was on his way. I sent an email to the ground crew who passes on messages to Bertrand and saying, "Smile after you cross I-64 and you follow Missouri river a bit. I will take your picture. Your will be flying by my home."
I employed my wife to track the craft on the net while I gathered the FinePix, binoculars, and tripod and headed outside. My wife texted me updates, "Get ready. Plane just shift down south angle over mo river."
I scanned the skies. There were several things out that night and the visibility was excellent. Planes, birds, stars; it was all there. My only worry was the tree line. Will it allow me to see Solar Impulse at all?
Then, I made out a red light and a green light just coming slowly over the trees. The lights were quite far apart, then I realized. That's it.
I nervously tried to take photos of it, but it would not show up on my camera view. I ended up pointing at it and shooting and hoping for the best. My wife came out.
She indicated a better spot for me to shoot. The plane was in an obvious holding pattern going round in circles. I set up in the new spot and then I heard my wife yell. Bertrand had put on the lights. I think he got my email. :-))
Now it was easy to get a picture.
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
It looked like some kind of slow moving extraterrestrial thing in the night sky. It was so quiet.
We later went inside and almost 2 hours later Bertrand landed at Lambert. The news said they had to use an inflatable hangar to house the craft since the designated hangar had been damaged by tornadoes.
On Friday afternoon my wife and I went to see the plane in person. It was in a large aluminum framed tent and several visitors were there along with the ground crew.
I got over 100 pictures in of the plane and of the posters they had around. Its massive wingspan was tremendous. The cockpit was open and there was a stuffed animal mascot in it. While the basic design of the craft was not new, the materials and technologies that went into it were new.
Solar Impulse as a project was to give awareness of alternative energies. It was the first solar plane to fly day and night without consuming any fossil fuel. I'm very glad my wife and I got to see it.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Autogyro: Forgotten Tech Still Shows Signs Of Potential
Autogyros seem to be a forgotten tech thanks to the advent of the very versatile helicopter. In modern times the autogyro has improved from Cierva's original design. Two man crafts now feature initial powered rotation of the rotors, aft facing propeller that provides partial vector thrusting with the rudder. Now the technology is being pushed further. Let's check out a couple of 'sporty' autogyros on the market that would make James Bond green with envy, and let's look at two future developments in the making.
The autogyro is going the way of the sports car. Calidus and Arrow Copter are currently on the market and show off their sexy bodies like no other rotary wing craft. They both are tandem two seaters and feature enclosed cockpit with a bubble canopy. Calidus has nice rounded curves and sleek lines while Arrow Copter sprawls out its elevator and rear landing gear almost like a bird of prey extends its wings, tail, and talons. They are quite cool. The beauty of a sleek and sexy autogyros lie in where they likes to fly. They like to fly just above the tree tops, and they do very well there. While planes can fly in that region, they can't maneuver as quickly in tight spaces as autogyros can. Following the terrain is quite dangerous for planes. Military planes require sophisticated radar mapping equipment to fly near the ground. Autogyros can swivel in tight turns, can fly slow, and cost less in maintenance than a helicopter. They can take off in around 500 ft of runway space though they don't need a runway. A flat field will do. They land in a fraction of that distance. Both of these models have a max. speed of just over 100 mph. They should do great in hilly or lake ridden landscapes. I gathered this information by watching many videos of gyroplanes and reading specs on them. Though it is said that autogyros are safer than helicopters, all aircraft can and do crash. All safety precautions should be taken.
There are now 2 significant developments. There is a flying car with the Pal-V, and there is a plane hybrid with Carter Aviation Technologies. The Pal-V is a roadable autogyro. That is it is street legal and flies like an autogyro. It seems to drive more like an enclosed motorcycle than a car since it leans into turns on its 3 wheels. The conversion from road vehicle to aircraft involves a combination of automatic motions and manual hands-on motions. You can cross rivers, lakes, mountains (or hills), and valleys by flying over them and then park it at home. That's pretty neat.
Carter Aviation Technologies have developed and perfected the slowed rotor concept to create a hybrid autogyro and plane. The result is a craft that can virtually takeoff and land vertically yet have the flight efficiency and range of an airplane. It's a real vertical takeoff and vertical landing craft (VTVL). Carter Aviation redesigned the main rotor and added weights on the tips. This allows for jump vertical takeoffs by pre-rotating the rotors. The craft converts from autogyro to plane just by tilting the mast. Then, it flies like a plane and you can get some great mileage or range out of your fuel. With larger craft, Carter Aviation plans on using twin propellers with variable angle props which would allow the craft to hover like a helicopter. This is truly a major breakthrough for the autogyro.
Autogyros are developing and have come far since Cierva made his debut flight in 1924. Some on the market are sporty, sexy, and fun. New innovations should help the future of this venerable craft. Perhaps one day we will look at autogyros the way we look at helicopters personal planes. It can be the safer go anywhere personal craft. Engineering is awesome.
The autogyro is going the way of the sports car. Calidus and Arrow Copter are currently on the market and show off their sexy bodies like no other rotary wing craft. They both are tandem two seaters and feature enclosed cockpit with a bubble canopy. Calidus has nice rounded curves and sleek lines while Arrow Copter sprawls out its elevator and rear landing gear almost like a bird of prey extends its wings, tail, and talons. They are quite cool. The beauty of a sleek and sexy autogyros lie in where they likes to fly. They like to fly just above the tree tops, and they do very well there. While planes can fly in that region, they can't maneuver as quickly in tight spaces as autogyros can. Following the terrain is quite dangerous for planes. Military planes require sophisticated radar mapping equipment to fly near the ground. Autogyros can swivel in tight turns, can fly slow, and cost less in maintenance than a helicopter. They can take off in around 500 ft of runway space though they don't need a runway. A flat field will do. They land in a fraction of that distance. Both of these models have a max. speed of just over 100 mph. They should do great in hilly or lake ridden landscapes. I gathered this information by watching many videos of gyroplanes and reading specs on them. Though it is said that autogyros are safer than helicopters, all aircraft can and do crash. All safety precautions should be taken.
There are now 2 significant developments. There is a flying car with the Pal-V, and there is a plane hybrid with Carter Aviation Technologies. The Pal-V is a roadable autogyro. That is it is street legal and flies like an autogyro. It seems to drive more like an enclosed motorcycle than a car since it leans into turns on its 3 wheels. The conversion from road vehicle to aircraft involves a combination of automatic motions and manual hands-on motions. You can cross rivers, lakes, mountains (or hills), and valleys by flying over them and then park it at home. That's pretty neat.
Carter Aviation Technologies have developed and perfected the slowed rotor concept to create a hybrid autogyro and plane. The result is a craft that can virtually takeoff and land vertically yet have the flight efficiency and range of an airplane. It's a real vertical takeoff and vertical landing craft (VTVL). Carter Aviation redesigned the main rotor and added weights on the tips. This allows for jump vertical takeoffs by pre-rotating the rotors. The craft converts from autogyro to plane just by tilting the mast. Then, it flies like a plane and you can get some great mileage or range out of your fuel. With larger craft, Carter Aviation plans on using twin propellers with variable angle props which would allow the craft to hover like a helicopter. This is truly a major breakthrough for the autogyro.
Autogyros are developing and have come far since Cierva made his debut flight in 1924. Some on the market are sporty, sexy, and fun. New innovations should help the future of this venerable craft. Perhaps one day we will look at autogyros the way we look at helicopters personal planes. It can be the safer go anywhere personal craft. Engineering is awesome.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Getting To Mars Depicted (Part 2)
In Part 1, we went through how much a trip to Mars costs in terms of fuel and hardware. It takes 8 large rocket launches just for one manned mission. That is about 75% the launches of the Apollo program to the moon. Back then, the US Congress was willing to spend the money, but today they are holding back wanting to cut NASA's budget. That's nothing new. Congress has been cutting NASA's budget for at least the past 20 years. A manned mission to Mars is quite a huge undertaking. I know I did not talk about the radiation concerns or other crew health issues. NASA likes to mention those. They don't like to mention how much it would cost, and I think that is an issue that Congress and the public need to address. The more the public knows about this issue the better. How could we possibly reduce the cost? Well, I've got 2 ideas. Both of them are along the lines of mass transportation and reusable assets. Reusable transportation assets and multiple manifests could provide more effective financing than one mission going alone by any one government space program.
Reusable Assets
When talking about reusable assets, a tug to take payloads from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and a reusable Mars lander/launcher come to mind. For Mars, these assets have to be very sophisticated to include transferring of fuel and other consumables. They would have to be able to be controlled remotely with some automation and manually by any crew.
I've talked about a reusable tug before. For Mars, having a large tug that can travel many times between the planets could provide the means to take multiple missions on each trip. Distributing the cost of the trip among several customers could make the trip financially possible. I like to imagine such a tug as being based on the concept of the Saturn S-IVB. It would have to be much larger. I could have duo-propulsion: traditional chemical booster; electric propulsion such as ion drive or plasma drive. Space.com has a great article on electric propulsion called How Electric Spacecraft Could Fly NASA To Mars. A robitic arm such as the Canadarm 2 could provide a means of capturing and docking many different types of space modules. Also it should be able to carry many modules to include unmanned and manned modules simultaneously. Our module technology has become quite sophisticated so I don't think that would be a problem. One of the biggest issues of such a craft would be electric power. Solar panels are nice, but large ones would be needed to power the electric propulsion. They also should be able to retract and deploy on command and often. I expect that aerobraking maneuver would help reduce the amount of fuel needed for each mission. Solar panels would need to retract for that maneuver lest they are damaged. These panels would have to last a long time. Another option, though less popular, would be giving the craft its own nuclear power reactor. Of course, responsible handling of the nuclear material is a must; including a disposal plan for the depleted nuclear material.
A reusable lander/launcher is necessary. The idea of landing on an atmospheric planet is enticing and yet hard. If you going to reuse the lander, it has to launch from the planet as well. We've never created a craft like that before. It would need a heat shield that can pop off and be replaced easily (by robotic means), a reliable engine, and large tanks for fuel. After every launch back into orbit, it would need to be serviced and refueled for the next landing. This craft is important because for one manned mission, NASA would use 3 landers and 1 launcher. That's 4 vehicles. Consolidating hardware complexity and weight into one vehicle should save on cost. Using this vehicle for many missions should be a savings multiplier.
What do we really want to do on Mars? Do we want to just plant a flag and walk around a go home? No, many folks want to do many things. From geology to colonization to terraforming, Mars has inspired many possible missions. If we go with throw away assets, we won't be able to afford getting there but once in a generation if at all. Mars should also only be the first step to exploring and exploiting the inner solar system. Therefore, reusable assets are a must. We must build an infrastructure.
Multiple Manifests
To spread the cost of trips to Mars and back, it would seem a no brainer to get as many different missions and customers to sign on. It's like filling up the cargo hold and passenger cabins of a larch ocean fairing ship to make trips between continents across a large ocean.
Imagine multiple unmanned mission accompanied by one manned mission packed on the reusable tug that is about to depart Earth orbit. These mission could be from all types: orbital, landers, rovers and sample returns. The landers, rovers, and sample return missions can get loaded up on the reusable lander/launcher to get down to the surface along with the assests of the manned mission. It seems they would all land in one spot. Well, that could create the opportunity to have some planetary transportation services such as fast rovers and aircraft. You can quickly imagine a multitude of missions and activity around and on Mars.
Spreading the cost for each trip and back from Mars among many customers seems reasonable. Using reusable assets such as a reusable transportation tug and a reusable lander/launcher goes hand in hand with multiple manifests. Such an effort could easily be a commercial venture. Such an infrastructure could have the effect of researching the red planet in a much faster fashion than what we do now. If regular trips to Mars every 3 years is sustainable then we would have established a permanent link worthy of colonization.
 |
| Many Launchers for 1 Mission |
When talking about reusable assets, a tug to take payloads from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and a reusable Mars lander/launcher come to mind. For Mars, these assets have to be very sophisticated to include transferring of fuel and other consumables. They would have to be able to be controlled remotely with some automation and manually by any crew.
I've talked about a reusable tug before. For Mars, having a large tug that can travel many times between the planets could provide the means to take multiple missions on each trip. Distributing the cost of the trip among several customers could make the trip financially possible. I like to imagine such a tug as being based on the concept of the Saturn S-IVB. It would have to be much larger. I could have duo-propulsion: traditional chemical booster; electric propulsion such as ion drive or plasma drive. Space.com has a great article on electric propulsion called How Electric Spacecraft Could Fly NASA To Mars. A robitic arm such as the Canadarm 2 could provide a means of capturing and docking many different types of space modules. Also it should be able to carry many modules to include unmanned and manned modules simultaneously. Our module technology has become quite sophisticated so I don't think that would be a problem. One of the biggest issues of such a craft would be electric power. Solar panels are nice, but large ones would be needed to power the electric propulsion. They also should be able to retract and deploy on command and often. I expect that aerobraking maneuver would help reduce the amount of fuel needed for each mission. Solar panels would need to retract for that maneuver lest they are damaged. These panels would have to last a long time. Another option, though less popular, would be giving the craft its own nuclear power reactor. Of course, responsible handling of the nuclear material is a must; including a disposal plan for the depleted nuclear material.
A reusable lander/launcher is necessary. The idea of landing on an atmospheric planet is enticing and yet hard. If you going to reuse the lander, it has to launch from the planet as well. We've never created a craft like that before. It would need a heat shield that can pop off and be replaced easily (by robotic means), a reliable engine, and large tanks for fuel. After every launch back into orbit, it would need to be serviced and refueled for the next landing. This craft is important because for one manned mission, NASA would use 3 landers and 1 launcher. That's 4 vehicles. Consolidating hardware complexity and weight into one vehicle should save on cost. Using this vehicle for many missions should be a savings multiplier.
What do we really want to do on Mars? Do we want to just plant a flag and walk around a go home? No, many folks want to do many things. From geology to colonization to terraforming, Mars has inspired many possible missions. If we go with throw away assets, we won't be able to afford getting there but once in a generation if at all. Mars should also only be the first step to exploring and exploiting the inner solar system. Therefore, reusable assets are a must. We must build an infrastructure.
Multiple Manifests
 |
| Mars Plane |
Imagine multiple unmanned mission accompanied by one manned mission packed on the reusable tug that is about to depart Earth orbit. These mission could be from all types: orbital, landers, rovers and sample returns. The landers, rovers, and sample return missions can get loaded up on the reusable lander/launcher to get down to the surface along with the assests of the manned mission. It seems they would all land in one spot. Well, that could create the opportunity to have some planetary transportation services such as fast rovers and aircraft. You can quickly imagine a multitude of missions and activity around and on Mars.
Spreading the cost for each trip and back from Mars among many customers seems reasonable. Using reusable assets such as a reusable transportation tug and a reusable lander/launcher goes hand in hand with multiple manifests. Such an effort could easily be a commercial venture. Such an infrastructure could have the effect of researching the red planet in a much faster fashion than what we do now. If regular trips to Mars every 3 years is sustainable then we would have established a permanent link worthy of colonization.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Getting To Mars Depicted (Part 1)
There is a lot of talk about going to Mars these days. It's an old goal, and one that captures people's imaginations. So much so that many movies and science fiction series episodes depict such a trip. What are the current plans? Why haven't we gone yet?
NASA has a plan to get to Mars. It involves 7 launches of the Heavy Lift Vehicle rocket, then 1 launch of a crew rocket, and 3 transfer vehicles, 2 landers, and 1 launcher from the surface of Mars. Unfortunately, that was for 1 manned mission. That's an insane amount of hardware and consumables. That gives you an idea of what a monumental task it is to land on Mars and to come back.
Unfortunately the plan was geared for the now dead Constellation Program. Russia has a plan for a manned Mars mission. I've heard it's to the Martian moon Phobos. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars as well as the Mars Society members. Even Buzz Aldrin is looking forward to a manned Mars mission. He has a book out now called Mission To Mars: My Vision For Space Exploration.
There are a couple of non-government proposals to the red planet. Dennis Tito, who visited ISS in , proposed a sling shot mission around Mars involving two people but no landing. What I like about this mission is that it's quite concise and understood. I mean we've done this with unmanned craft. Space.com has an article about it called Dennis Tito's 2018 Human Mars Flyby Mission Explained.
Another proposed mission seems a little crazy to me because it sidelines the problem of returning to Earth by not returning. Mars One Foundation wants to conquer Mars with a colony and is looking for people willing for this one way ticket mission. The settlement idea is impressive. They seem to use their resources wisely. Yet, once people arrive, then you have to supply them with provisions like food for the long term. That is at least a launch to Mars every 3 years. If it's all the same to you, I'd be happier with a way back home to Earth, please.
The Mars Society is a group of people interested in colonizing the red planet. They also create papers and do research that will aid in manned missions. They have been conducting some interesting simulated manned mission on the martian surface. These are being conducted at Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS). It's a simulated base with all kinds of experiments going on. They are always looking for volunteers. I you wondered what would people do on the red planet, check Mars Society out. You'd be amazed.
So, why haven't we been to Mars yet? That's a really good question. It's a question that is not easily answered. We wanted to go in the Apollo era. We've been talking about going for many decades. We've sent rovers there and that has renewed interest for a manned mission. I suppose the answer is embarrassing to engineers and scientists. These guys are 'can do' people. They take a 'can't don't' challenge and tackle it. Manned mission to Mars happen to be extremely difficult. The areas of difficulty are not in technology but finances and logistics.
There are two big problems with such a trip:
1. Mars is so far away its very expensive to land 1 lb on it.
2. Mars is hard to launch from, unlike the moon.
Mars is quite far away and that's understandable. 34.8 million miles is the closest Earth has come to Mars. The moon is only 0.25 of a million miles from Earth. Mars is going about 54,493.9 mph. Earth is going about 66,673.5 mph. Now, that may seem counter intuitive that Earth is actually traveling faster than Mars, but were dealing with the gravitational field of the Sun and it's not linear, but curved. So, a spacecraft has to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to cruise to Mars. That would require several times the fuel needed to get to the moon per pound or kilogram.
To launch from the surface of Mars, you need to account for the gravity and the atmospheric friction. Mars has about twice the gravity of the moon and a third that of the Earth. The martian atmosphere pressure is like that at about 100k ft in Earth's atmosphere. I figure you could compare it to launching from the Moon with the Apollo lander or launching from Earth with a Mercury launch. Either way, you end up with a launcher that is several times the mass of the lunar lander. You need to take all that weight to Mars from Earth, and that at multiple times what it costs to go to the moon.
The distance between Mars and the Earth and the conditions on Mars itself make it extremely expensive in fuel and hardware to do any mission. That may help answer why we haven't gone yet. Who is going to afford it? Is there a better way than throw away hardware?
Click here for Part 2.
 |
| NASA's Mars Transfer Vehicle |
Unfortunately the plan was geared for the now dead Constellation Program. Russia has a plan for a manned Mars mission. I've heard it's to the Martian moon Phobos. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars as well as the Mars Society members. Even Buzz Aldrin is looking forward to a manned Mars mission. He has a book out now called Mission To Mars: My Vision For Space Exploration.
 |
| Mars by Viking 1 |
Another proposed mission seems a little crazy to me because it sidelines the problem of returning to Earth by not returning. Mars One Foundation wants to conquer Mars with a colony and is looking for people willing for this one way ticket mission. The settlement idea is impressive. They seem to use their resources wisely. Yet, once people arrive, then you have to supply them with provisions like food for the long term. That is at least a launch to Mars every 3 years. If it's all the same to you, I'd be happier with a way back home to Earth, please.
The Mars Society is a group of people interested in colonizing the red planet. They also create papers and do research that will aid in manned missions. They have been conducting some interesting simulated manned mission on the martian surface. These are being conducted at Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS). It's a simulated base with all kinds of experiments going on. They are always looking for volunteers. I you wondered what would people do on the red planet, check Mars Society out. You'd be amazed.
 |
| Mars - JPL Solar System Simulator |
There are two big problems with such a trip:
1. Mars is so far away its very expensive to land 1 lb on it.
2. Mars is hard to launch from, unlike the moon.
Mars is quite far away and that's understandable. 34.8 million miles is the closest Earth has come to Mars. The moon is only 0.25 of a million miles from Earth. Mars is going about 54,493.9 mph. Earth is going about 66,673.5 mph. Now, that may seem counter intuitive that Earth is actually traveling faster than Mars, but were dealing with the gravitational field of the Sun and it's not linear, but curved. So, a spacecraft has to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to cruise to Mars. That would require several times the fuel needed to get to the moon per pound or kilogram.
To launch from the surface of Mars, you need to account for the gravity and the atmospheric friction. Mars has about twice the gravity of the moon and a third that of the Earth. The martian atmosphere pressure is like that at about 100k ft in Earth's atmosphere. I figure you could compare it to launching from the Moon with the Apollo lander or launching from Earth with a Mercury launch. Either way, you end up with a launcher that is several times the mass of the lunar lander. You need to take all that weight to Mars from Earth, and that at multiple times what it costs to go to the moon.
The distance between Mars and the Earth and the conditions on Mars itself make it extremely expensive in fuel and hardware to do any mission. That may help answer why we haven't gone yet. Who is going to afford it? Is there a better way than throw away hardware?
Click here for Part 2.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Drones For Future Civilian Uses
We have all heard of drones these days. They attack and hurt people, and they are robots in the sky. Unmanned Areal Vehicles (UAV) is what they used to call them. Back in the 90's that was a new name. Before that we called them remotely controlled aircraft. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the harmless R/C airplane made out of balsa wood had turned into a killing monster out of science fiction. Yet, I don't believe that drones are done evolving. History has yet to write the next chapter on these aerial vehicles. What makes a drone a drone, and where can it go from here?
A drone is an aircraft without a pilot, correction, without a pilot inside the craft itself. There is most always a pilot, if not two. Between the pilot and the craft is a series of communication devices and servos, and robotic relays that's needed to fly the craft. The range of the craft will depend on two things, fuel and communication with the pilots. Now, this set up allows for a very wide variety of size, shapes, and speeds. So much so, that the smallest one that the military uses is only 10 cm (0.328 ft) long. It's called the Black Hornet Nano. As you can imagine, it's mission is for surveillance, On the other end of the design spectrum, we have one of the largest which is the Global Hawk made by Northrup Grumman. Now, this one has been in operation for a while. New drones have come out that are more stealthy, but Global Hawk represents high end drones for our purposes. It has a wingspan of 39.9 m (130.9 ft). Of course, the main drone used by the military has been the Predator. A drone has exceeded manned aircraft in an endurance flight. Read about Zephyr in this article found in flightglobal.com. There are many and varied drones in the world. New aircraft designs like that of Carter Copter and HILLS Space Plane are finding some interest by the drone clients. I think that drones are going to jump from military usage to commercial roles in the near future. In his article, Joe Schoffstall of CNSNews.com says that near future is quite soon.
There are commercial applications for drones that will come
out in the future. Among such applications, I can imagine drones covering the morning
traffic commute. Just think; instead of reporters climbing in a prop aircraft
or a helicopter, they go inside where the drone's pilots are, an office
that's on the ground. The reporters look intently at the monitor that
shows the images from the drone's cameras. They are not in danger, and
they can go to the bathroom anytime. They report the traffic news, and
the cost of this service drops. Helicopters are costly to maintain. Drones are smaller, and a drone the right size has the potential to be cheaper. From what I can find out, current large drones are quite expensive. It sounds favorable for the reporters, and potentially financially favorable for the network shelling out the money for this service. Unfortunately, the helicopter or airplane pilot would be out
of a job. Other applications are ones that piloted planes do now, such as surveillance, law enforcement, etc. One of the main benefits of drones is that they can stay aloft as long as they have fuel. Pilots can be changed out in shifts on the ground. An example of non-military use of drones is NASA's Global Hawk which is used to get telemetry on hurricanes and atmospheric readings related to Earth sciences.
I feel like I have to talk about the fear that people have of drones. The US Military were the first military to use them and the first to use them as weapons. The weaponizing of drones have had a bad effect on public relations. Drone fear is real and heavy. Farea al-Muslimi spoke to the US Senate on this fear in an article by Spencer Ackman of Wired Magazine. They are hard to detect in the sky and they can strike when you least expect it. This fear was not unique in aviation history. Helicopters caused a similar fear, but that fear was about being monitored not killed. Could this fear hamper any attempts at commercializing drones?
Drones are here, and they are here to stay. What we do with them is going to be up to us. What laws will restrict their uses in the future? What will we tolerate? What benefits could they have to our everyday life? These things are merely tools. ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction and instilled fear in common man in the Cold War. Now companies like Orbital Sciences use them to launch satellites into orbit. Like missiles, Drones can find an acceptable role in society. You decide.
 |
| Black Hornet Nano |
 |
| NASA's Global Hawk |
I feel like I have to talk about the fear that people have of drones. The US Military were the first military to use them and the first to use them as weapons. The weaponizing of drones have had a bad effect on public relations. Drone fear is real and heavy. Farea al-Muslimi spoke to the US Senate on this fear in an article by Spencer Ackman of Wired Magazine. They are hard to detect in the sky and they can strike when you least expect it. This fear was not unique in aviation history. Helicopters caused a similar fear, but that fear was about being monitored not killed. Could this fear hamper any attempts at commercializing drones?
Drones are here, and they are here to stay. What we do with them is going to be up to us. What laws will restrict their uses in the future? What will we tolerate? What benefits could they have to our everyday life? These things are merely tools. ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction and instilled fear in common man in the Cold War. Now companies like Orbital Sciences use them to launch satellites into orbit. Like missiles, Drones can find an acceptable role in society. You decide.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
HILLS Space Plane - David Luther Interview
Being recently introduced to the Horizontal In-Line Launch Staging (HILLS) Space Plane and finding it dramatically cool and futuristic, I ventured to seek an interview with David Luther. David is the mastermind behind this impressive design.
 |
| HILLS Space Plane Design |
David Luther, You have a cool space plane concept can you give a brief description of it?
Two blended wing body aircraft are joined as a single space plane to fly from a runway to space and back. They are joined in line, nose to tail for aerodynamic and safety advantages until they separate in flight for staging. Their combined wings enhance lift with reduced drag for a smaller more efficient launch system that is fully reusable as well.
How did you come up with this idea?
Years ago I worked with Bill Colburn on a suborbital blended wing body concept. These forms offer large internal volume and reduced drag. One member of that effort suggested we consider orbital applications. I proposed joining wing bodies in-line to keep the frontal area low. The shuttle accidents validated placing the crew out in front of booster malfunctions as well. Being able to stage early offers an escape path.
Is the in-line configuration a new idea or one just not implemented yet?
We see the X-43 on the nose of a Pegasus winged rocket in testing. Other similar examples are usually lofted by a conventional jet aircraft. I have never seen this done from the runway with a blended wing body though. We see interesting aerodynamic effects from the two wings acting in harmony as a single wing. This was the feature that we identified as a patent opportunity.
You have a mother ship and an orbiter. How would this configuration make it to Earth orbit?
We are similar to other horizontal proposals of the past except for having stages in-line. I like using a rail launch for control during takeoff. Rubber tires threatened the Concorde and rocket fuel is a lot of responsibility for the pilot. Rails remove issues with traction in crosswinds and may be used for braking in an abort emergency. Any energy gain is frosting. Our models and drones will use a rail launch as most drones do. Landing gear can be lighter when only tasked with a single empty stage, adding more payload capacity.
Suborbital speeds are good in the lower atmosphere, and rockets can deliver the delta vee in thinner air where drag is less of an issue. Blunt forms are better for reentry as most active shuttles show. We are less blunt than some lifting bodies so we may retain some cross range flight ability on landing.
Some say that wings are not needed in space, and that wings and such provide unnecessary weight to the vehicle. Why is this a better system than using rocket and capsule?
True, to go to space is easy without wings, but to recover the booster and orbiter is important since they are assets. Low cost and high flight rates will require recovery of the total system. Wings are also functional for glide recovery if propulsion fails on ascent or reentry. Vertical landing lacks this alternative on propulsion loss, and they have the mass penalty of more fuel load.
Capsules are fine, but I haven’t seen much reusability historically. The X-37 is operating reusably on a regular basis with wings today. Orbital Sciences Pegasus used wings to aid orbital ascent, Stratolauncher will build on this, and Xcor will offer an orbital system too. We may just have a little of the mass and fuel burn towards this goal.
Blended wing bodies offer high lift and low drag with good internal volume. When coupled we see the orbiter making a contribution to lift during the ascent flight. The wings and associated vortex activity multiply the efficiency of the booster combination. The booster can be smaller as it gains wing area from the orbiter.
This principle can offer smaller atmospheric airliners for ocean crossings too. A booster can enable smaller engines and fuel tanks for atmospheric flights. This also empowers greater efficiency for unmanned drone systems. New propulsion like scramjets will need an efficient booster design as well.
 |
| HILLS Space Plane - Separation |
Where are you in your project?
Kickstarter may fund a model airplane as a demonstration. That would be a fun project, but we already have some interest from the drone market. If these are on duty for crop monitoring and border patrol, the idea will become more common. Production and visibility can open minds to more applications. We are open to billionaire angels, but a regular paycheck is an acceptable alternative too. Jeff Greason and Xcor are my role model in this area: “Show me the money!”
What do you hope to accomplish?
I want to eliminate the new American caste system called “unemployable”. If you are part of that group, please consider donating time to our effort. We will invest sweat equity towards a new paradigm: “If you can’t join them, lick them!”
What do you need to accomplish it?
Faith and patience. Some competitors will fall to overconfidence or system complexity and alternative solutions will gain more opportunities. Some systems will arrive in the right place at the right time and grow with the opportunities. Some solutions are as natural as water flowing downhill; buy farms with good bottom land soil and plant!
 |
| HILLS Space Plane - Cut Out |
What do you say to the other alternate ways to orbit like that of JP Aerospace (dirigibles to orbit), the Space Elevator guys, or even air launch companies like Orbital Sciences and Stratolaunch and Virgin Galactic?
I had lunch with John Powell (JP Aerospace) last year and we may want some light gas pockets in future space planes. Helium is in short supply lately though. Space elevators are focused only on the moon now, and other orbital efforts will only help to build a market. We hope to show that market a way to shave a little waste from the system.
Alternative systems are good for niche applications as with rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Heavy lift may favor vertical launch and passengers may favor wings. Vertical landing is the only path to the moon and asteroids. We need all the good ideas.
Is there anything else in particular you wish to share with aerospace aficionados?
Don’t waste your study hall time drawing pictures of space ships. Do the math!!
David's HILLS Space Plane is a unique and awesome concept. If David has his way and it's successful, we may be traveling to orbit effortlessly as passengers like we do international flights now. It could be a Star Trek kind of experience. To follow on what David said, drawing pictures is fine, but make them reality with math. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) are where it's at.
[Pictures were provided courtesy of David Luther]
[Pictures were provided courtesy of David Luther]
Monday, April 15, 2013
Commercial Moon Missions Imagined
Apollo took men to the Moon. Many unmanned craft of Russia and US and now other countries have made it to the moon. Soon to follow are commercial companies. Now, China wants to send Taikonauts to the moon. I don't blame them since a progressive space program can produce lots of research that helps their economy. How would commercial companies go to the moon? What vehicles would they need? How should they differ from past manned missions? Learning from Apollo, it's obvious that certain modules are needed to make any mission to the moon work. You need a capsule to return the crew to Earth, you need an in space booster, or two, to get the crew and equipment from earth to the moon and back, and you need a lander. Now, if your not going to the surface, you will need a space station made up of at least one module. It goes without saying that you need to supply all the fuel and other consumables for those vehicles. Let's look at how these modules might be for a cool commercial effort that comprises of many missions to our natural satellite.
Why a capsule? Well, let's put it this way, two superpowers chose the capsule to return crew from the moon. Even though Soviet Russia did not do a manned mission to the moon, they did plan for one. Capsules are concise and able space vehicles. I've heard space professionals say that wings are not needed in space. A space plane would have extra weight, and weight is the Achilles' heal of flight. When your traveling a half a million miles round trip in space, wings seem like a luxury. So capsules it is. What's great right now is that SpaceX is pushing the development of the capsules to have them set down on land with a propulsive landing and be able to be reused for more missions. That is a far cry form Apollo days which relied extensively on a service module for crew survivability over the length of the mission. SpaceX Dragon only has solar panels that are not incorporated into the capsule itself. Everything else is. Now, a capsule needs a beefier heat shield for lunar missions than just Earth orbit. The temperature difference is about 2000 degrees Fahrenheit (1093 degrees Celsius) between reentering Earth's atmosphere from low orbit and from the Moon. Currently, it is only feasible to have the capsule reenter the Earth atmosphere coming from the moon rather than trying to enter an Earth orbit. We have not figured out how to go from Moon orbit to Earth orbit with a manned mission yet. Though, in the future that could be a preferred way of doing business.
Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) was the maneuver used to take Apollo from Earth orbit to lunar orbit. They used the upper stage of the Saturn V rocket to perform it and then jettisoned the booster. Yes, I did not mention the Command Module docking with the Lunar Module because it's not relevant right now. That may have worked for NASA but commercial efforts would require re-usability for many missions over time. So to take care of the TLI function a reusable tug is in order. Now this tug has to accommodate both manned an unmanned missions. So, two forms of propulsion that exist should be used. One is the traditional chemical booster and the other is the newer ion drive. ESA's Smart-1 used an ion drive to power its way from Earth orbit to lunar orbit so its a viable technology. The ion drive can be used for multiple reasons. It has the power to navigate unmanned craft or failed manned craft (in the case of a dead crew) back to Earth so the loss of assets are minimized. It can navigate the tug by itself to meet another ship for rescue operations. It can speed up a manned mission to the moon, or other space bodies, by activating en-route all the way. So it makes sense to have a dual propulsion system for our reusable space tug. Of course, it will need a power supply and solar panels should do nicely. A nuclear power system would be nicer since it could enhance performance and endurance of the craft, but radiating the crew or your cargo or ship is an issue. Though, the nuclear system could power an artificial magnetic field that provides shielding. The tug can be used to do all the burns to get from Earth orbit to lunar orbit, and it can get the capsule on its way back to Earth. After detaching from the capsule, it can change course and get into an elliptical orbit and use aerobraking to slow down the craft to an orbit that is useful for refuel and the next mission thus saving fuel.
LEM was the acronym for the lunar lander in the Apollo program. It meant Lunar Excursion Module. Later, they just named it Lunar Module but somehow LEM stuck. A reusable lunar lander would be more appropriate for multiple missions than the one time use LEM. It could be refueled by the space tug in preparation of a landing and launching back from the surface. It could be kept in lunar orbit in between missions. One chemical engine should suffice. The Apollo LEM was made up of two vehicles: a landing vehicle and a launching vehicle. For our reusable one, it should be one vehicle. Perhaps, two lunar landers could provide some redundancy and security for missions.
A single inflatable station module is good to have in orbit around the moon. Such modules are being developed by Bigelow Aerospace. It can serve as bigger space and more accommodations for crews, a port for the reusable lander, and a staging place for crew equipment and supplies. One mission can bring it into orbit with or without a lander to begin with. More station modules can be added to it as needed. Boeing had previously suggested EML2 as a place for a lunar station instead of just simple lunar orbit. I mentioned this plan in my post "Space Exploration Plans From Boeing". I like the simple lunar orbit exclusively for moon missions over EML2 simply because its closer to the surface and it should take less time and fuel to get to. Even if that is marginally true, its still viable over the course of many missions or even a campaign.
With capsules, space tugs, landers, and a space station; a commercial effort can carry out many moon missions for various customers. Thinking about it now, I feel that having a space station around the Moon and a lander would be a good combination for several missions. Humans have gone to the moon, and many more want to go for various reasons. Finding way on how to thrive and not just survive on the moon is important for humanity. We need to spread out beyond Earth. The moon provides a first step towards that goal.
 |
| NASA's Orion MPCV |
 |
| ESA'a Smart-1 ion drive to Moon |
 | ||
| Apollo 12 - Intrepid Lunar Module |
A single inflatable station module is good to have in orbit around the moon. Such modules are being developed by Bigelow Aerospace. It can serve as bigger space and more accommodations for crews, a port for the reusable lander, and a staging place for crew equipment and supplies. One mission can bring it into orbit with or without a lander to begin with. More station modules can be added to it as needed. Boeing had previously suggested EML2 as a place for a lunar station instead of just simple lunar orbit. I mentioned this plan in my post "Space Exploration Plans From Boeing". I like the simple lunar orbit exclusively for moon missions over EML2 simply because its closer to the surface and it should take less time and fuel to get to. Even if that is marginally true, its still viable over the course of many missions or even a campaign.
With capsules, space tugs, landers, and a space station; a commercial effort can carry out many moon missions for various customers. Thinking about it now, I feel that having a space station around the Moon and a lander would be a good combination for several missions. Humans have gone to the moon, and many more want to go for various reasons. Finding way on how to thrive and not just survive on the moon is important for humanity. We need to spread out beyond Earth. The moon provides a first step towards that goal.
Friday, April 5, 2013
The Return Of Chesterfield Airshow
 |
| TBM Avenger 2007 Airshow |
According to the St Louis Post Dispatch reported in it's article Spirit of St Louis to hold anniversary show article that this will be a one time show. Of course that could change and it could become an annual event. At least that is the inference.
 |
| C-2 Greyhound 2007 Airshow |
Kudos to St Louis County for this airshow. I encourage everyone who can to come out next year and check it out. For those not in Missouri, keep the look out for your local airshow and support it. Many airshows die out because of lack of participation and that's a sad thing. I encourage the STEM effort and airshow partnership. It seems a good need and solution effort.
(Pictures shown in this post were taken by E C Holm in the 2007 Chesterfield Airshow)
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Space Mining Operation Imagined
Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resouces want to mine asteroids and perhaps comets. For years many people imagined that asteroids and comets were good for extracting minerals. How would such an operation work in space? We will look at what these small space bodies are made of, the scouts, the miners, and processors that are needed to extract the goods.
To find out the content of comets and asteroids, NASA had some significant missions that provided answers. Deep Impact spacecraft was successful in giving us analysis of the composition of comet Tempel 1 in 2005. Stardust was a spacecraft that collected samples of comet Wild 2. It finished its primary mission in 2006 and then had an add on mission to look at Temple 1 after Deep Impact's mission. NEAR Shoemaker mission did some spectrography on an asteroid in 1997. The findings of these missions are posted in the journal Science (membership required - a free one is available). From what I read in Science articles, comets are full of water, carbon-dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide. Asteroids seem to have elements to include iron, magnesium, silicon, and calcium, among others. That's important because that is what is peaking the interest of companies to go and perform mining operations.
To really get a good understanding of what particular asteroids are made of, the companies will have to send out scouts. Instead of a geologist, they will be remotely operated unmanned spacecraft. Now, until recent history, unmanned exploration spacecraft either did flybys over specific routes, or went to orbit only one space body. After their launch, which gave them the velocity they needed to get to their destination, they only had thrusters to steer themselves and no real main propulsion. DAWN is the first unmanned spacecraft to have its own main propulsion via an ion drive. Now its on its way to Ceres after orbiting and orbiting Vesta. That's what you want in a scout. It needs to orbit several asteroids by jumping from one to another. Ion drives were first tested on NASA's Deep Space 1 mission with a mission manager that felt like Captain Kirk, Marc Rayman. He also manages DAWN.
Marc is a pretty neat guy. After the video interlude, let's get back to our topic. As for finding the needed materials, and impactor and a spectrograph could be a quick way of determining the composition of asteroids or comets. A scout could have several impactors. This would be similar to the Deep Impact mission, but I imagine smaller and simpler impactors would be preferable. Another way is to simply spectrograph the surfaces of the asteroids or comets. I also would imagine marking the asteroids and comets by landing a small radio code transmitters. This would be useful for the miners to come to them and find them. Then on Earth, an automatic ground based system could track them without the need of an astronomer.
After marking the asteroids, miners come to extract the ore. What would a robotic miner look like? Now landing on an asteroid would seem tricky because of their irregular potato shape and the fact that they are spinning. In 2005 Hayabusa landed on an asteroid and collected a sample. A miner could do the same, but it must collect a lot of soil, do some preliminarily sifting (optional), and send the soil to a processing plant. The container for the soil would have to be large and have its own service module (like a reusable space tug). There should be several of these container ships going from the mining site to the processing plant. They could be refueled at the processing plant and, if necessary, refuel the miner.
The processing plant should not be on Earth. It should be in a place that is easily accessible from Earth and from deep space. Earth-Moon, or Sun-Earth L2 could be ideal places. The processing plant would be a complex piece of machinery that perhaps would need humans to maintain it when it breaks. Now such a plant would process the ore and have some material left over. The waste material could be either sent to the moon or be collected next to the station, effectively making a ever growing pile of rubble that becomes an asteroid itself.
After the ore is processed into some usable material, it could be sent to Earth, but why? Well the simple answer is: that's where the factories are. Yet, it seems rhetorical to get useful material in space to be only used on Earth where such material already exists. That would be economically unsound. An alternative is to take the material and make it usable for 3D printers to create whatever is needed for infrastructure in space and sell these items to other space companies for parts or new space structures. These structures would use the elements from asteroids like iron, calcium, magnesium, and such. The other types of product these processing plants could create would be consumables like water, oxygen, and hydrogen. These consumables would be used by space stations, and even unmanned systems for fuel as well as the obvious.
Now, I've heard an alternate motivation for mining asteroids and that is for precious and rare minerals. Whether such minerals exist in asteroids, I don't know nor have I read anything to that effect. In such a case, bringing such material to Earth would be appropriate. Such minerals could be sold in existing markets.
The use scouts, miners, and processing plants is the heart of my imagined space mining plan. Now this little thought exercise is nice but is by no means the only way. I just laid out a way that I thought would work. It's fun to let you imagination run with a solution. I even thought of an alternative which would make the miner and processor into one vehicle. Yet, every plan will have different benefits and liabilities. I'm sure you can come up with your own space mining operation plan. It's a fun activity.
 | |
| Stardust |
To really get a good understanding of what particular asteroids are made of, the companies will have to send out scouts. Instead of a geologist, they will be remotely operated unmanned spacecraft. Now, until recent history, unmanned exploration spacecraft either did flybys over specific routes, or went to orbit only one space body. After their launch, which gave them the velocity they needed to get to their destination, they only had thrusters to steer themselves and no real main propulsion. DAWN is the first unmanned spacecraft to have its own main propulsion via an ion drive. Now its on its way to Ceres after orbiting and orbiting Vesta. That's what you want in a scout. It needs to orbit several asteroids by jumping from one to another. Ion drives were first tested on NASA's Deep Space 1 mission with a mission manager that felt like Captain Kirk, Marc Rayman. He also manages DAWN.
Marc is a pretty neat guy. After the video interlude, let's get back to our topic. As for finding the needed materials, and impactor and a spectrograph could be a quick way of determining the composition of asteroids or comets. A scout could have several impactors. This would be similar to the Deep Impact mission, but I imagine smaller and simpler impactors would be preferable. Another way is to simply spectrograph the surfaces of the asteroids or comets. I also would imagine marking the asteroids and comets by landing a small radio code transmitters. This would be useful for the miners to come to them and find them. Then on Earth, an automatic ground based system could track them without the need of an astronomer.
 |
| Deep Space 1 |
The processing plant should not be on Earth. It should be in a place that is easily accessible from Earth and from deep space. Earth-Moon, or Sun-Earth L2 could be ideal places. The processing plant would be a complex piece of machinery that perhaps would need humans to maintain it when it breaks. Now such a plant would process the ore and have some material left over. The waste material could be either sent to the moon or be collected next to the station, effectively making a ever growing pile of rubble that becomes an asteroid itself.
 |
| NEAR Schoemaker |
Now, I've heard an alternate motivation for mining asteroids and that is for precious and rare minerals. Whether such minerals exist in asteroids, I don't know nor have I read anything to that effect. In such a case, bringing such material to Earth would be appropriate. Such minerals could be sold in existing markets.
The use scouts, miners, and processing plants is the heart of my imagined space mining plan. Now this little thought exercise is nice but is by no means the only way. I just laid out a way that I thought would work. It's fun to let you imagination run with a solution. I even thought of an alternative which would make the miner and processor into one vehicle. Yet, every plan will have different benefits and liabilities. I'm sure you can come up with your own space mining operation plan. It's a fun activity.
Monday, March 18, 2013
A Rocketless NASA?
 |
| SLS courtesy NASA |
So far, the major commercial players to launch NASA assets into orbit are ULA, Orbital Sciences, and SpaceX. These guys represent the current launch might of the United States. The rockets are:
ULA
Orbital Sciences
SpaceX
Atlas V is being upgraded to be human rated to compete with Falcon 9. Antares is also competing with Falcon 9 but in the pressurized cargo area. ULA is a cooperation between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Before SpaceX, only Atlas V, the Delta family and Oribtal's rockets (not Antares) were the launchers plus NASA had Shuttle (STS). Shuttle is gone. You see that the commercial companies are responding to NASA's need and challenge to assist in the manned exploration effort already.
If NASA never gets SLS, how could it explore asteroids and Mars? SLS represents an approach that was used for Apollo. That approach was to put all your assets on one BIG ROCKET and go for your target. Man has never been manlier (that's a joke). There is another theoretical approach but it's never been tried. That approach requires the use of medium size rockets (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9). The idea is to use more than one launch to Earth orbit and put together your stack that goes to your target in orbit. That stack would have a rocket big enough to leave Earth orbit, carry all the assets needed for the mission including a capsule to return the crew back to earth. This would give commercial companies contracts and responsibility for launches. Plus the old axiom is put to use that says "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Launch from Earth represents the most risk to hardware and crew on any mission apart from landing. Does this seem inefficient? Perhaps to a rocket scientist, but it just may very well be more economically feasible than the alternative.
What about Orion? The Orion capsule is the only asset to come out of the Constellation program to survive, albeit modified. It is slated to launch on a Delta IV Heavy for its first space test run and return at high speed through the atmosphere. That tells me it doesn't need SLS to get to orbit. Delta IV or Falcon Heavy are capable of handling the job.
What could this stack look like? If you look at SLS, the stack could be the upper stage that uses the J-2X engine, whatever space module needed form the mission, and the Orion Command Module. 2 or 3 launches should do the trick. Later, they could make the J-2X booster into a reusable booster that comes back to Earth orbit ready to be refueled for another mission.
SLS is based on old idea of space operations. This is a new century. NASA has bigger plans for exploration than is SLS can economically provide. SLS is really putting money in a rocket that is seldom going to be used. That makes no economic sense. NASA should stop reinventing the rocket.
NASA without its own rocket could open up the architecture of a mission to become more economically feasible, more reliable, and more evolvable. I say let commercial companies lift NASA to orbit. Then NASA can take care of exploration from there.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Learjet In Chahokia
This story made the national news. A Learjet had landing gear trouble and took it's time to figure out how to land at St Louis Downtown Airport in Cahokia, Illinois. The plane ended up making a safe landing at Lambert Airport at the pilots request for a wider landing strip. The front gear was the one the pilot was concerned about. Apparently it could come down and retract, but it was 30 degrees tilted off center. That was revealed to the pilot after a flyby of the tower at the St Louis Downtown Airport. The crew and eight passengers were aboard. I'll comment about the aircraft and the landing.
Learjet is the maker of business jet aircraft that have better speed than airliners. The Learjet in the story was a model 45. It has a cruise speed of 500 mph and a range of 1968 mi. It was developed in the early 1990's so it's not a new aircraft. In fact, there was an upgrade to this model called the model 45XR.
With nose gear problems, a pilot might try keeping the nose in the air while landing and slowing the plane to a near stop. I've seen this maneuver done by F-15 pilots. Apparently they like to see who can keep the nose up the longest. I don't think a Learjet could do such a stunt. The pilot might have preferred to let the nose down as slow as possible. The Grimli Glider had a nose gear that didn't want to lock as one of its problems. The gear collapsed on landing and the front part of the fuselage halted the aircraft. The pilot of the Learjet took a long time to land apparently figuring out the best way to minimize damage to the plane and injury to the passengers. He tried a couple of times to land but aborted before landing at Lambert. To his credit, he succeeded without incident.
As to emergency landings, this one ended on a good note. Too often they don't end well. I suppose it made the national news because the pilot requested the main airport rather than the smaller one. The story was covered by Fox 2 News.
 | |
| Learjet 45 |
With nose gear problems, a pilot might try keeping the nose in the air while landing and slowing the plane to a near stop. I've seen this maneuver done by F-15 pilots. Apparently they like to see who can keep the nose up the longest. I don't think a Learjet could do such a stunt. The pilot might have preferred to let the nose down as slow as possible. The Grimli Glider had a nose gear that didn't want to lock as one of its problems. The gear collapsed on landing and the front part of the fuselage halted the aircraft. The pilot of the Learjet took a long time to land apparently figuring out the best way to minimize damage to the plane and injury to the passengers. He tried a couple of times to land but aborted before landing at Lambert. To his credit, he succeeded without incident.
As to emergency landings, this one ended on a good note. Too often they don't end well. I suppose it made the national news because the pilot requested the main airport rather than the smaller one. The story was covered by Fox 2 News.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Looking At AugustaWestland
Growing up making model aircraft and learning about all kinds of craft, I bought a book on helicopters. It documented all the helicopters up to that time, 1980's. The designs were interesting and varied. I did notice a brand of helicopter that seemed pretty fancy and yet I hadn't heard of. It was the Augusta helicopters. They seem to rival high end VIP helicopters of Bell. Recently I was saddened to hear that AugustaWestland had some serious allegations against them in their deal with selling some helicopters to India. Westland was a British aircraft firm. Augusta and Westland were merged in 2000. Both companies have a good history in making high quality helicopters. Let's check out a couple of these beauties.
The Lynx was originally developed by Westland for the British military. Westland shared its production with the french company Aerospatiale, now a part of Eurocopter. This helicopter has had long history with British, French, and many other countries' military. Whether with wheels or skids it has had a lot of different configurations for multiple roles. It's popularity is not surprising, since it set the speed record for helicopters in 1986. I've seen footage where this very capable craft has even done the unimaginable for rotary wing, barrel roles. It's a great air platform. The updated version of the Lynx is called the AugustaWestland AW159 Wildcat. It made an appearance in the movie Skyfall. The Wildcat has a max speed of 296 kph (183.9 mph), and a range of 787.3 km (489.2 mi). It can take 2 crew and 6 passengers.
The AW101 was originally a joint effort by Westland and Augusta under the name of EH101. They call it Merlin. It's a medium lift craft that replaces the S-61's role with many modern features. Troop carrier, sub hunter, search and rescue, this craft can do it all and in all weather conditions. Looking at the specs, it can hold 2 crew members and 30 passengers. It has a range of 1058 km (657.4 mi). It has a cruising speed of 278 kph (172.7 mph).
The AW609 was developed by Augusta and Bell and it's being produced by AugustaWestland. The tiltrotor technology was developed by Bell in a project called XV-15. Out of it came V-22 Osprey. You can say that the AW609 is the civilian version of the tiltrotor tech. It has a cruise speed of 465 kph (299 mph). It has a range of 1390 km (852 mi). It up to 9 passengers with a crew of 2. This exceeds the speed and range of the AW101 and the Wildcat. This is the purpose of the tiltrotor, to have a VTOL aircraft that can fly longer and faster than a helicopter. Sikorsky's X-2 and Carter Copter's Slowed Rotor techs are competing for similar markets as the tiltrotor tech.
If you haven't heard of AugustaWestland before, now you have. It happens to be a mainstay company in the rotary wing craft business just like Boeing, Sikorsky, and others. They have an impressive presence in Europe but do business world-wide. They are bold enough to try to market the tiltrotor in the commercial markets when no other company will. I'd keep an eye on these guys see what they will do next.
 |
| Westland Lynx |
_Barrasford_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1587659.jpg) |
| AW101 |
 |
| AW 609 |
If you haven't heard of AugustaWestland before, now you have. It happens to be a mainstay company in the rotary wing craft business just like Boeing, Sikorsky, and others. They have an impressive presence in Europe but do business world-wide. They are bold enough to try to market the tiltrotor in the commercial markets when no other company will. I'd keep an eye on these guys see what they will do next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)